- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:59:57 +0100
- To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 10 Apr 2008, at 14:50, Alan Wu wrote: > Bijan, > >> >> Ok, I'll rephrase your point: Regardless of whether it's true or >> not, RDFishness is not helpful in distinguishing fragments and may >> cause extreme negative reactions. Thus, we should find other >> points for guidance. >> >> Cheers, >> Bijan. > Could you please elaborate on the extreme negative reactions? It's not saying that OWL-R *is* RDFish, but rather than the others are not. Isn't this exactly Ivan's reaction? > Triple-friendly is indeed one of the features of OWL R. Actually, I don't agree, per se. At least not very interestingly so. YYMV. My point is that highlighting this can be contentious. It already *was* contentious. See this thread. > This allows > a plain triple store vendor to adopt/add some OWL easily. And I > don't see any harm in that. You've got it wrong way around. See above. > Of course, I don't intend RDFishness to be *the* distinguishing > point or *the only" distinguishing point. OWL R, as designed, does > facilitate/encourage > implementations to materialize inference graph and consequently > speed up query execution. That's an implementation point. Personally, I think materialization is a fairly bad implementation strategy (and yes, I have tried it). See various recent papers on RDFS reasoning. OWL-R doesn't force materialization. It works just fine with a magic sets/semi-native evaluation strategy. But now we're off point :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 13:58:18 UTC